🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:21:29 UTC No. 16631092

notice how it's only judeo atheists who are infatuated with IQ

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:32:31 UTC No. 16631110

>>16631092
I wonder why

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:40:07 UTC No. 16631120

>>16631092
It’s normal
Atheists are smarter
Religiosity correlates with g negatively on a population level as well

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:41:02 UTC No. 16631123

>>16631043
>One would except
low iq detected

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:41:08 UTC No. 16631124

>>16631043
I scored 107 on this 4 years ago

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:43:17 UTC No. 16631128

>>16631110
This is fake
The mean Iq for whites is 90

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:50:27 UTC No. 16631138

>>16631043
Perfect 100

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:50:53 UTC No. 16631139

these are the best tests according to reddit

ICAR60 is only B tier

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 23:29:21 UTC No. 16631383

>>16631139
Don’t trust that list
A bunch of frauds made this sub and they’re 95-100 FSIQ larping as 140 Indians

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 12:26:34 UTC No. 16631715

>>16631043
I fail to see the significance attributed to IQ. Individuals possessing higher IQ may exert comparatively minimal effort to achieve commendable academic results, whereas their counterparts with lower IQ may attain equivalent outcomes through increased diligence. Beyond academic contexts, its relevance appears questionable at best.

Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 12:57:21 UTC No. 16631732

>one would expect
>prestigious university

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 07:41:30 UTC No. 16632315

>>16631043
>ask you the same 3 questions 20 times each
Holy cow this test is boring. It gave me 42 correct, is that good at least?

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 09:43:21 UTC No. 16632355

>>16631732
yall got any more of them pixels or would that be russophobic?

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:20:29 UTC No. 16632483

>>16631732
>y-axis

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:26:23 UTC No. 16632485

>prestigious university
You have no idea how they operate, do you?
Retard.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:29:36 UTC No. 16632489

>>16631732
Your pictures don't agree with each other. The top shows the entire range of the education spectrum overwhelmingly supporting vaccines and the bottom shows the most and least intelligent being anti-vaxxers.

Also education distribution isn't a bell curve. PhDs and no college are nowhere near equally sized populations, let alone representing dwindling fractions at the ends of a bell curve in the case of no college.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 18:14:53 UTC No. 16632926

>>16632315
This test lacked the variety I've seen in some similar questionnaires online. I wasn't keeping count, but it seemed like nearly half if not more of the questions involved rotations of the same type of cube. Not as entertaining as it could have been, due to this.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 18:21:25 UTC No. 16632934

>>16631043
any% less than 150 seconds first try

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 18:26:05 UTC No. 16632938

>>16631043
tapped out after 20 questions. too loaded toward stupid fucking dice questions, of which about half of what i'd seen were dice rotations. i can only see them doing this if 3-d visualization has a high g-loading, which i find a dubious claim at best.

raphael at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:58:17 UTC No. 16633568

>>16632926
cheater

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 11:17:42 UTC No. 16633662

Some of these problems were fucking bullshit.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 12:51:11 UTC No. 16633723

>>16631110
Low IQ atheists are people who just don't think about religion at all.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:06:16 UTC No. 16633734

>>16631110
fooken destroyed m8

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 14:02:17 UTC No. 16633763

>>16631110
God is all around us. Ironically religion often distracts from that, creating cultists and midwit atheists alike. High intellect atheists feel it too they just don't call it god.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 14:26:14 UTC No. 16633793

>>16633763
And that's why he can't be demonstrated to exist
>look at the trees!!!

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 15:29:16 UTC No. 16633871

>>16633793
>look at the trees!!!
This but unironically. Absorb as much knowledge as you can about the structure, and use it to better feel the nature. A tree shares a biosphere with us, cells in an organism together in a sense. A layer deeper, we gradually exchange atoms back and forth with everything on the surface of the earth. A layer deeper than that, everything around us is a part of the same energy field, vibrating in tandem. Take that backwards and outwards a little bit, and what we can observe is a universe that contains particles in a vacuum stable field, and predisposes that matter to clump into habitable spheres and organic particles and for those organic particles to be advantaged by growing and accumulating and developing mind and temporality, life. A universe of connected forces, outcomes shifted by some force that generates innate random change at a subatimic level, all predisposed to the creation of life, which began in a flash of light.
Some form of deism always would've seemed reasonable, even when we could sit under a tree and just sense it in nature. And now, with us knowing what we know, it really is no less reasonable.
Who knows, maybe all possibilities exist and life is unfathomably rare out side our universe or doesn't exist at all. Hard to say much from our sample size of 1. But if ours is all that is, or if there are other worlds and they are or at least often are similar to our own, then the tendency to life is just set into the physical order of things. You can read that as pointing to a creator, or simply to a unity of all things and a lot of unanswered questions, but either way there is something profound to be gleaned from the way all levels of our reality are aligned in the creation of life I think.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 15:30:45 UTC No. 16633873

>>16633871
I liked the schizoposting, and the being wrong about deism was a fun cherry on top.
Overall, >>>/x/ and please stay there.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 15:37:34 UTC No. 16633880

>>16633873
If someone brings up religion here it's inbounds to make a rationalist argument in favor I think. Note the chart did show high intellect religious people! More interesting than posting my IQ score.
>being wrong about deism
Okay getting too into this would be too /x/ of me, but fwiw deism isn't a dogma or even an organized religion. Maybe not the best choice of a shorthand word but my sort of neoplatonist christianity qualifies as deist.
Overall you have made rather a pseudpost here. And that's coming from a christcuck like me so you know you done goofed.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 15:38:53 UTC No. 16633881

>>16633880
Lets read together, shall we?
>everything around us is a part of the same energy field, vibrating in tandem
And you mean to tell me you're not just being a retard?

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:17:27 UTC No. 16633948

>>16633881
>>everything around us is a part of the same energy field, vibrating in tandem
I was referring to our life-giving (and hopefully stably grounded) vacuum state. And to the push and pull of fundamental forces. This is a soup of quarks and gluons and leptons and others whose names I can't remember because I am not a quantum physicist, all dancing around in harmonically entangled spins and frequencies of motion. Here is a denser spot of energy we call "you," over there a spot we call "tree." They're all emergent from the vacuum state and the higgs field.
I am not a physics expert by any means, but the more I learn about astronomy and biology and fundamental mechanics the more the picture I've painted in my spiritual case above comes together, for me at least.
So no, not retardation, abstraction.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:22:50 UTC No. 16633954

>>16633948
>stuff is some way
>you can't explain that therefore god
actually there are particles
>well particles are some way
>therefore god
actually they exhibit properties based off quantum spin, field interaction, etc
>well that stuff is some way
>therefore god
Retard, abject and objective. You're trying to use ideas you yourself say you don't understand, on the science and math board, to prove god.
Direct quote
>the more picture I've painted in my spiritual case
You can't properly construct a sentence, much less prove a spirit realm exists. You're taking it on blind faith, making arguments you don't understand, and generally being dumb about it.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:29:19 UTC No. 16633959

>>16633954
Okay that sentence was properly constructed if bordering on run-on and lacking proper commas, and you inserted a typo into it that wasn't real. Don't be a pedant.
>well that stuff is some way
>therefore god
Well, more like
>the stuff is a very particular way
>therefore meaning
The universe is a single huge interconnected system, and it makes life seemingly innately. If, at a root level, we have free will, it seems likely to be a result of random fluctuations in the quantum vacuum state, and if we have predestined lives it is because of whatever explanation proves those nonrandom.
The system exists, unless our physics is very wrong. The question of whether god exists is really the question
>Is this system awake?
And that is fair to debate. But personally I take my own existence as evidence of its awakeness, and I don't find that unreasonable.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:34:48 UTC No. 16633966

>>16633959
>I didn't write that
Read your own post, I even highlighted it for you to help.
>I can control the wave function with my free will
No you can't. Cause the doubleslit to form two lumps instead of an interference pattern using only your mind and get back to me.
>I am conscious so the universe is too
My pencil is yellow, therefore the universe is yellow. No?

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:40:30 UTC No. 16633970

>>16633966
Yes, I see it. Read your screenshot. You removed a "the" which made it sound nonsensical.
Are you just saying "my spiritual case" was nonsense phrasing? That was shorthand reference to the case I was making as a rational defense of my spirituality.
>>16633966
>I can control the wave function with my free will
Not what I said. I mean if there's anything beyond rote if complex mechanics underlying our brain processes it's probably something to do with the only source of true randomness we suspect exists in the universe.
>I am conscious so the universe is too
Again you misunderstand me.
It's:
>This interconnected system generated things that think and perceive, so perhaps it is itself alive or purpose-made

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:43:44 UTC No. 16633975

>>16633970
>You removed a "the" which made it sound nonsensical.
No I didn't, read my post again. I copy pasted the highlighted part exactly.
>>This interconnected system generated things that think and perceive, so perhaps it is itself alive or purpose-made
From the earth game graphite; from the ground, trees; and from the hand of GOD HIMSELF came man with one purpose:
To make yellow pencils.
The universe is making pencils innately, and so perhaps the universe is itself pencil and yellow.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:59:18 UTC No. 16633991

>>16633975
>the more the
This is the screenshot you JUST posted. You cannot be this illiterate. Your grammar is also shit.
I don't understand why every atheist who wants to convince me I'm irrational turns into a drooling troll halfway into every conversation.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:00:21 UTC No. 16633992

>>16633975
Forgot picrel my turn to be dumb. But point stands lol.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:02:39 UTC No. 16633994

>>16633991
I'm not trying to convince you, I'm saying all your reasoning is absolute dogshit.
>>look at the trees
>yes literally
You could have stopped here, exactly at this point, and you would have been better off because your argument is so trash that it's unbelievable.
You cannot demonstrate anything spiritual, godly, supernatural, etc; you look at the natural world, shrug, and say "must be my god"
It's rationalization, not reason, that lead you to these conclusions. Your self admitted ignorance only compounds the issue because you don't understand physics, philosophy, or arguments in general.

By your logic, how is the universe conscious but not also pencil?

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:09:38 UTC No. 16633997

>>16633975
Also
Yellow pencils are an expression of human will to innovate and enhance our lives, combined with the mineral bounty of our rich rock, and our aesthetic sensibility for supernaturally pleasing objects. Yes actually, yellow pencils are God's design.
God is in everything, like I said in the first place.
>>16633994
>You cannot demonstrate anything spiritual, godly, supernatural, etc
Think I've just demonstrated it in the pencil actually.
Forces of evolution and emergent complexity exist in our universe, shaping pockets of life bundled up safe by little gravity wells and forgiving laws of physics to grow and develop. This pencil metaphor actually expresses a way I have framed the concept of bread and wine as the body and blood of christ relating to material works (trying to convince certain types of Christians not to be antivax), so it's familiar ground for my theology.
>your self admitted ignorance
And don't pretend you know everything. I know less than I will, and I won't know everything. There are actual physicists who know the fine details better and I'm sure would be interesting to speak with. They don't know everything about the universe either. Arrogance does not become you.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:15:07 UTC No. 16634002

>>16633997
>define god to be "the universe"
>surprised when people don't start worshipping it for no reason
Anyway, to quote Jesus, "it's not what goes into the mouth that defiles [the body], but what comes out." Those vaccines won't help you against the demons that are the actual root cause of the issue, according to our man JC, you see?
>don't pretend you know everything
I never said I did, I mearly pointed out you know less, and you KNOW you know less. This isn't an "I think he thinks" donkey space, this is flat out you being wrong.
>stuff is some way
>therefore god
What if stuff was different? You'd use the same argument.
How do I know? When people thought stuff was different, they used the same argument. The argument doesn't change, the stuff changes, and the argument stays the same: dead wrong, braindead, and thought stopping.
You don't actually think about it, you decide god exists and try to justify it with your limited knowledge of touching your toe to every field, just enough to say "there is stuff here" and blame that stuff on your favorite imaginary entity.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:22:03 UTC No. 16634013

>>16634002
>The argument doesn't change, the stuff changes
Does it though?
>life exists, therefore god exists
>life continues to exist, in any scenario where living things make this argument no matter what other knowledge they possess
What stuff changed? All that's changed on that point from our knowledge is we know just how ingrained the evolutionary process and the interconnectedness of things are in the makeup of our reality... which is not exactly an argument against religion.
>"it's not what goes into the mouth that defiles [the body], but what comes out."
You my friend are a prime example of this.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:25:17 UTC No. 16634017

>>16634013
Things are interconnected in what sense?
>they all have the same energy field vibrations
You realize this is meaningless drivel right?
Let me ask a different question, maybe you'll understand this one:
Could the universe be ANY way that would disprove a god? The universe is a way, sure, but if it was a different way would that convince you god doesn't exist?
I understand hypotheticals are hard for the religious, so take your time.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:27:11 UTC No. 16634018

>>16634013
>You my friend are a prime example of this.
Funnily enough, calling you a retard doesn't make me physically ill. I could do it all day every day for a year, and nothing would change.
You'd think GOD HIMSELF would know about the germ theory of disease, but I guess it took until humans invented optics to figure it out.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:53:19 UTC No. 16634035

>>16634017
Actually yes it could. If life did not exist but I was still somehow extant to ponder this question, sure. If I received proof of simulation theory is another (though that opens the question of highee divinity on the makers' plane). If many worlds theory is true but like, it's really ALL universes and life is infinitesimally unlikely and most universes are dead space or full of raw heat or something... well that one might change my concept of god but not totally make me atheist. I'm sure there are others that could do it. Maybe if we could produce a complete theory of everything with NO loose ends, explain before the big bang and after the heat death, every fluctuation and chaotic event, and if that theory of everything did not itself just (as you know by now I suspect it would) paint the face of god even clearer.
So yes I could be convinced. I don't think it's truly unfalsifiable. But I also think current evidence points to consciousness as we experience it being a sort of flickering of what the whole universe is doing, maybe exists TO do. Our thoughts are just the stuff that everything is made of in goldilocks-density complex forms with a lot of energy exchange, in goldilocks zones naturally generated by gravitational interaction. If that's what happens when you bundle up a little bit of universe, then the universe is god inasmuch as we are essentially neurons ourselves.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:58:08 UTC No. 16634038

>>16634035
Former half ok, latter half stupid as fuck. Overall, C+ for effort and D for critical thought.
You're still stuck on the universe being yellow, which is dumb. Good luck with your apologetics, because even your "is there anything that could convince you no god" every single one ends with
>but then there would be god there anyway
Literally, hypotheticals are too advanced for the god-headed mind.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:13:53 UTC No. 16634056

>>16634038
>You're still stuck on the universe being yellow
No I moved past that because it was a shallow point. Pencils are just a creation of the human mind shaping matter. It's a little bit of sentient universe rearranging some more inert stuff in a way it finds pleasing and useful. Posing me a version of this question that doesn't rely on an example of something alive or man made would make your point better.
>so why not "god is shaped like a hot burning ball of gas"
>so why not "god is shaped like infinite vacuum"
Also easily answerable but closer to a decent version with this.
You seem to be the one struggling with concocting hypotheticals actually.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:53:51 UTC No. 16634150

>>16634056
>n-no you
Very cool, based retard.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 20:19:42 UTC No. 16634173

>>16633997
question, is there any actual proof of god or is everything just
>god's design

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 21:15:13 UTC No. 16634211

>>16631110
uh oh, someone is going to have a melty

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 21:18:22 UTC No. 16634214

>>16631110
kek, christians are turbo midwits